BUDHIRAJA ELECTRICALS Vs. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the non-consideration of the price bid of the petitioner. It was contended before me by Ms.Ansuya Salwan, learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the tender documents and terms of the tender, the technical bid as well as price bid was given in two envelops A and B. Various other contentions were raised before me by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to size of LT panels the details of which was not given in the tender. It was also argued that in past in similar circumstances the respondents have allowed petitioner to submit revised bids. It was further contended that after asking the petitioner to keep its, bid offer valid, the respondents ought to have considered the price bid of the petitioner. .It was further argued that the respondents had no right in not considering the price bid as the said bid was not withdrawn and no revised price bid was submitted by the petitioner to the respondents.

(2.) On the other hand, Mr.Y.K. Kapur, learned counsel for respondents/Airport Authority of India has contended that the petitioner has sought change in the. price bid by loading the component of additional sales-tax which was not permitted by the respondents and vide its letter dated 30/3/2000 it was made clear that the same was not agreeable,to the respondents and if the petitioner did not confirm compliance of the said letter, the price bid of the petitioner shall be rejected.

(3.) Thereafter, a letter was written by the petitioner (which is at page 44 of the paper-book), wherein the petitioner has reiterated its stand that on account of statutory levies, the statutory increase announced by the Government, the petitioner had a fundamental-right to revise its rates.